Is this Cameron's Sepp Blatter moment?

[barber olly]

If anyone has pointed out that the publicity this has received has neatly deflected attention from the strikes, well quite. However:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hhtiPVx9aLFSN_0-HYk5MMb7a4mw?docId=N0228831322876629256A

If The Sun wants to publish Clarkson's particular brand of shlock and bore that's its affair. Like the other recent BBC apology spectaculars the question should perhaps be whether a license fee funded, public service broadcaster should be promoting this kind of self-promoting thuggishness. If that's 'old-fashioned' or 'humourless' of me, fine.

It is interesting as to where that fine dividing line comes between accepting apologies and being fired. It seems that Clarkson is the proverbial cat, whereas others whom the Beeb likes less do not get a second chance. He seems shoots himself in the foot using a brand of soft rubber bullets, however. if he ever grew up he could be quite dangerous.

[kernelbogey]

The kind of aggressive humour represented by Clarkson's 'joke' has become fashionable - see numerous contemporary stand-up comedians' material passim - and somehow acceptable. I believe that humour of this kind expresses an underlying attitude. Clarkson's stupid language about 'gilt-edged' pensions and 'working for a living' displays his contempt for the strikers: this supports my view that a part of him probably would like to see some of them shot in front of their families.

Imagine anyone making a similar remark about, say, Blacks, Jews or Roma, and they would be prosecuted. That is the edge which Clarkson has chosen to occupy.

I find a helpful antidote to my contempt, whenever I come across anything to do with the man, is to imagine him wearing short trousers.

[Mr Pee]

this supports my view that a part of him probably would like to see some of them shot in front of their families.

Of course he wouldn't. Read the full transcript of what he said. He's entitled to object to the strikes- a large number of people don't support them- and he expressed that view in his usual hyperbolic manner.

It's the fact that some people took the remark seriously that's the most worrying thing about this storm in a teacup.....

[kernelbogey]

Of course he wouldn't.[...]

I absolutely disagree, Mr Pee. I wrote a part of him: 'of course' he wouldn't do it or actually recommend it. This is how aggressive humour expresses the darkness that is in us all.

[Richard Tarleton]

On a quick glance through this thread, nobody seems to have considered the presenters (I recognised the male one from Countryfile) - if I were the BBC I'd be thinking hard about their suitability for the job - on the news clips, they sat there like rabbits in the headlights, with fixed grins, without a clue as to how to deal with Clarkson.

A good discussion on the Today programme today.

[mercia]

on Radio 4's Any Questions last night it seemed to be put forward as fact that the Clarkson/presenters exchange had been scripted by persons unknown

not that that makes it any better

[Stunsworth]

Top Gear also ceased being a motoring show a long time ago. Its essentially a tightly-scripted comedy show about three overgrown schoolboys. The BBC holds on to Clarkson, May and Hammond because they are the show's raison d'etre.

Its Last of the Summer Wine with middle aged blokes. I stopped watching it years ago when I grew tired of the scripted spontanaity.

I wonder what Cameron's reaction would have been if he'd made similar remarks about racial minorities, gay people or women? I tend to believe he'd have been far less understanding.

[Lateralthinking1]

I have never worn a suit jacket with jeans.

The show was scripted with the BBC beforehand. George Galloway asks what would have happened if he himself had been on The One Show and said "shoot David and Samantha Cameron in front of their children". He's a colourful figure and so on. Would we hear "That's just George etc. Forget it". Or would he have been out on his ear and vilified for ever more?

One of the problems with the line "this aggressive humour is popular now" is it so highly selective when it comes to what we are all being told we should laugh off. The vile Jimmy Carr saying that you can't tell Downs Syndrome children apart. That's ok apparently. To object to it is being po-faced. By contrast, the extremely irritating Jim Davidson saying that all the Chinese population here look the same. That would probably get Jo Brand, Adrian Chiles and their ilk absolutely frothing at the mouth.

What I see here in the new political correctness is that rightly it is not permissible for minorities to be hurt but the vulnerable, or those being made vulnerable or more vulnerable, can be treated like dirt, or worse as things to boot around. The vulnerable have the legislative misfortune of existing both in the minority and majority categories. It seems that this is the get out clause for those who currently are the very opposite of vulnerable to have a go. Some say it's cool humour. I'd say it was a neo-con cash cow, or even more to the right politically, parading just vaguely enough as sort of leftist to capture the widest audience.

To put it another way, for me it is rather like a version of Nick Griffin if he accepted that he had lost the battle in the media on all of his strange issues and decided to look for gaps where he could still have a controversial angle. Except actually I don't think that he would do a Carr or a Clarkson. Warped as it clearly is, I feel that by contrast he thinks he has a moral code.

I sometimes wonder whatever happened to the public's dislike of the kind of characters we used to describe as creeps. For it used to be the case that David was generally supported against Goliath. Now he gets pummelled into the ground and everyone laughs. A bit like gun gangs chucking toddlers off bridges and then telling the parents that they need to stop whinging and get a life.

[french frank]

It's the fact that some people took the remark seriously that's the most worrying thing about this storm in a teacup.....

It depends what you mean by 'taking it seriously': just because you don't think he meant it literally doesn't mean you shouldn't take the offensiveness of the comments seriously.

Interesting point about offence: suppose someone were to say on TV about the strikers, 'Ho, ho! Call that a strike? I don't think so! What a pathetic damp sqib. Ha, ha, ha. Oh, I can't stop laughing!' and an angry, resentful striker were to say, 'That overpaid idiot should be taken out and shot in front of his family.' I wouldn't assume that he meant it or would want to live in a country where anyone was taken out and shot. But I wouldn't find the comment offensive. I would sympathise with the sentiment behind it. A lot of people didn't sympathise with the sentiment behind Clarkson's comments and they did find them offensive. That's what has been taken seriously.

[Mr Pee]

Interesting point about offence: suppose someone were to say on TV about the strikers, 'Ho, ho! Call that a strike? I don't think so! What a pathetic damp sqib. Ha, ha, ha. Oh, I can't stop laughing!' and an angry, resentful striker were to say, 'That overpaid idiot should be taken out and shot in front of his family.' I wouldn't assume that he meant it or would want to live in a country where anyone was taken out and shot. But I wouldn't find the comment offensive. I would sympathise with the sentiment behind it. A lot of people didn't sympathise with the sentiment behind Clarkson's comments and they did find them offensive. That's what has been taken seriously.

And equally, a lot of people - including me- DID sympathise with the the sentiment behind it, and therefore did not find it offensive.

As for Cameron's "damp squib" remark, I thought it a fair reflection of the day.

As did this blogger for the Independent, who also agrees with me on the Clarkson kerfuffle:-

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/12/02/it%E2%80%99s-not-clarkson%E2%80%99s-fault-the-n30-strike-was-a-damp-squib/

Me and the Independent in agreement- somebody pinch me.......

[kernelbogey]

Thoughtful article by Marina Hyde here about the controversy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/02/jeremy-clarkson-rebel-cause-dvds

[Mr Pee]

Thoughtful article by Marina Hyde here about the controversy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...bel-cause-dvds

Oh my God.....I'm even in agreement with The Guardian.....take me outside and shoot me........


(That was a joke, by the way.....it seems important to emphasise that around here........)

[Lateralthinking1]

Quote: But I would like to think there is a vast third category that finds our national sport of taking offence to be the last word in plonkery. In as few words as possible, I wish to place myself in the last section.

Yes but she's an out and out liar as far as I can see. How would she be on a re-run at 8pm on ITV and BBC1 of the racist Love Thy Neighbour, Till Death Us Do Part and the Bernard Manning Show?

Or how about some blatant sexist anti women stuff from Roy Chubby Brown? She'd be screaming to the hills.

This notion of "if it is humour, it isn't serious" is baloney. Try telling Steve Bell that. He means every cartoon he has ever drawn. Guardian readers love him for it.

[MrGongGong]

I haven't read all of the comments in the papers about this
but one thing needs always to be remembered
which is

Jeremy Clarkson is a character, he is playing a role in a narrative that is called TV
whether it's scripted or not it matters very little
whether people "like" him or not matters little
as , like almost ALL TV , he is no different to an actor who has learnt a script


to confuse this with "real" life just makes you look stupid
as does sending someone to prison for writing "lets have a riot" on the internet

[Mr Pee]

I haven't read all of the comments in the papers about this
but one thing needs always to be remembered
which is

Jeremy Clarkson is a character, he is playing a role in a narrative that is called TV
whether it's scripted or not it matters very little
whether people "like" him or not matters little
as , like almost ALL TV , he is no different to an actor who has learnt a script


to confuse this with "real" life just makes you look stupid
as does sending someone to prison for writing "lets have a riot" on the internet

I agree with all the above.

Except for the last line.